Advocates:
['Omkar Sunil Paranjape', 'ABHIJIT DILIP SARWATE', '', 'ajinkya mohan udane']

KVM

1/42

16 - RPM 2 OF 2021.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

REVIEW PETITION NO. 2 OF 2021

IN

FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2019

Dr.Akshay Arun Ranade

….. Petitioner

VERSUS

Dr.Mrs.Sarika Akshay Ranade

….. Respondent

Mr.Omkar S. Paranjape for the Review Petitioner/Org.Respondent.

Mr.Abhijit D. Sarwate a/w. Mr.Ajinkya Udane for the Original

Appellant.

CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND

V.G.BISHT, JJ.

DATE : 29^th JUNE, 2021

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

P.C:-

By this review petition, the review petitioner (original

respondent) seeks recall of the paragraph 52 of the judgment dated 7^th

April, 2021 delivered by this Court in Family Court Appeal No. 122 of

2019. The review petition is vehemently opposed by the learned

counsel for the original appellant by filing affidavit in reply. The

review petitioner has filed rejoinder to the said affidavit in reply.

2.

Mr.Paranjape, learned counsel for the review petitioner submits

that when the judgment was pronounced by this Court on 7^th April,

KVM

2/42

16 - RPM 2 OF 2021.doc

2021, there was no pronouncement by this Court that the order of

maintenance passed by this Court on 6^th December, 2019 in favour of

the daughter Miss Sia to continue and is not affected by the said

judgment dated 7^th April, 2021. He submits that no notice was issued

to the review petitioner by the original appellant when any such

clarification was sought after pronouncement of the judgment on 7^th

April, 2021.

3.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner

that the said order of maintenance was filed in Interim Application No.

167 of 2019 in Family Court Appeal No.122 of 2019 which appeal was

filed by the original appellant. Since the said Family Court Appeal

No.122 of 2019 filed by the original appellant has been dismissed by

this Court by the said judgment on 7^th April, 2021 on the ground of

maintainability, the interim orders passed by this Court in the Interim

Application filed in the Family Court Appeal filed by the original

appellant also came to be vacated automatically.

4.

Mr.Sarwate, learned counsel for the original appellant on the

other hand invited our attention to the annexures to the affidavit in

reply filed by his client in this review petition and would submit that

both the parties had impugned the judgment delivered by the Family

KVM

3/42

16 - RPM 2 OF 2021.doc

Court by filing separate appeal. His client filed Appeal No.122 of 2019

whereas the review petitioner filed Family Court Appeal No. 56 of

2017. He submits that the Roznama would clearly indicate that both

the appeals and the interim application were clubbed and were heard

together by this Court from time to time. By a common order passed

by this Court on 30^th August, 2019 both the appeals were admitted. He

submits that even if there was any mistake according to the review

petitioner in the said order dated 30^th August, 2019, while granting

order of maintenance in favour of the daughter of the parties by

mentioning the number of the said Interim Application as 167 of 2019

in Family Court Appeal No.56 of 2017, the review petitioner never

raised any objection and did not apply for correction of the said alleged

mistake.

5.

The next submission of the learned counsel is that even if there is

any mistake on the part the Court in mentioning the wrong number of

the appeal in the said order dated 6^th December, 2019, the original

appellant cannot be made to suffer because of such mistake.

6.

The last submission of the learned counsel for the original

appellant is that the said paragraph 52 in the judgment dated 7^th April,

2021 was added by this Court immediately after the judgment was

KVM

4/42

16 - RPM 2 OF 2021.doc

pronounced and not later and thus no case is made out for the recall of

the said paragraph. It is submitted that no grounds as required under

Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure are se